The application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 10-22 examined.
Assignee Reptrack formerly RI (Reputation Institute)
Amended 10 - 22
New none
Canceled none
Withdrawn 1-9, 23
RESPONSE TO REMARKS
Examiner thanks applicant for the effort in amending the claims to advance prosecution
Applicant’s amendment and remarks are fully considered but are unfortunately not persuasive.
101
As to applicant argument that
Technical … as being data-centric (remarks p11 top ¶)
Examiner agrees that it’s math for organizing human behavior.
As to applicant argument that
Technical improvement (p11 remarks middle ¶ )
Examiner
Generic additional elements generally applied are used as a tool for producing exactly the efficiency of computer implementation in Alice, Bilski, Trinity, and here.
As to applicant argument that
Submits it’s more likely than not
Examiner
This conclusion is unfortunately not supported with premises.
Examiner claim is math for organizing human behavior.
2d, that math doesn’t integrate into a practical application. It doesn’t even need a computer.
3rd, it’s Collecting information via survey, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)(CAFC 2016)
The data is in service of the calculation (math). The servers is not the center but just a means to generically execute the idea on generic technology generally applied.
The claim is predicting i.e. CALCULATIONS FOR TARGETED MARKETING. The claims are read in light of the specification. The calculating is to get to a behavioral connection score. The claim is ineligible.
It’s Collecting information via survey, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)(CAFC 2016)
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here survey on network via computer
Trinity Info Media (CAFC 2023) survey on network via computer
See Trinity Info Media, LLC v Covalent, Inc (CAFC July 14 2023)(precedential)(survey neither eligible nor saved by generic elements generally applied, e.g. network, hand-held device etc)
The invention solves a business problem with a business solution.
Applicant solves a business problem with a business solution via generic elements generally applied.
The claim is Collecting information via survey, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)(CAFC 2016)
As to applicant remarks that there’s an integration into a practical application
Examiner
Applicant simply take and abstract idea and then uses a computer to apply it.
IN SUM: MATH + ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR.
As to applicant remarks, (remarks p12 bottom)
Neither novelty nor non-obviousness is relevant to 101.
SAP America (CAFC):
“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is NOT ENOUGH for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct” from demonstrating novelty or nonobviousness.
A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature.
Example 47 is beside the point. Applicant merely uses computer technology to automate math for organizing human activity. If it were as Applicant argues, then Alice and Bilski would have been 101 eligible b/c they used a computer.
101 rejection maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
STEP 1
The claims fall within one of the four 101 statutory categories (10 process).
STEP 2A
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here survey on network via computer
Trinity Info Media (CAFC 2023) survey on network via computer
See Trinity Info Media, LLC v Covalent, Inc (CAFC July 14 2023)(precedential)(survey neither eligible nor saved by generic elements generally applied, e.g. network, hand-held device etc)
The invention solves a business problem with a business solution.
Applicant solves a business problem with a business solution via generic elements generally applied.
The claim is Collecting information via survey, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)(CAFC 2016)
The claims are 101 ineligible.
Even given the fact that Applicant deleted the word reputation from the amended claims, what remains is CALCULATIONS FOR TARGETED MARKETING. The claims are read in light of the specification. The calculating is to get to a behavioral connection score. The claim is ineligible.
Alice v. CLS Bank:
The fact that a computer “necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,” Brief for Petitioner 39, is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in §101 terms, a “machine”), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the §101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility “depend simply on the draftsman’s art,” Flook, supra, at 593, thereby eviscerating the rule that “ ‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’ ” Myriad, 569 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).
And the calculating, reading the claim in light of the Specification and drawings, is based on “an intangible concept”.
Reputation is “an intangible concept”.
Applicant says so:
https://www.reptrak.com/blog/7-ways-to-quantify-reputation/ (10 June 2019)
PNG
media_image1.png
377
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
329
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
946
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claim is/are directed to Certain Methods of ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04 are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity
3) Mental processes
The claims are directed to each.
A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature.
SAP America (CAFC):
“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is NOT ENOUGH for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct” from demonstrating novelty or nonobviousness.
Prong 1 answered “YES”, the next question in Prong 2 is whether there is an integrated practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
There’s no practical application of the idea of math for organizing human behavior, determining reputation.
Dependent claims
More math, data gathering, data labels.
STEP 2B
Applicant simply applies the idea MPEP 2106 using generic elements generally applied.
Claim 1 has not significantly more than the idea.
Viewed as a whole, the claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea amount(s) to a ‘processor, recording device, medium which use generic elements, MPEP 2016.05(d).
The claim limitations alone or in ordered combination do not improve upon the technical field to which the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of any device itself. Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering (2009) is a general technical reference with these generic elements, which was already provided to Applicant. The reference is the kind a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “hanging on their wall“, e.g. as a pdf shortcut or icon on wallpaper of one’s computer. Display (presented by a user interface of a user device) is mentioned 427 times includes display (Wiley p.2261), memory at p. 2263 (mentioned 1700+times in Wiley), database, server p.125, server 610 times (at least e.g. p.1982), processor 639 times (e.g. p. 1242-1243), database 1728 times (e.g. p.1253), storage medium (e.g. p.131), computer (3553 times, e.g. p.283), network (at least p.1700-1707), interface for signaling (770 times at least p.1700-1707), user interface (UI) 102 times e.g. p17.
The additional elements alone or in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generic linking use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are generic activities previously known to the industry. Moreover, these generic limitations do not lead to an integrated practical application because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to an integrated practical application. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Moreover, mere recitation of a machine or medium in the preamble does not make a claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex Parte Langemyr (Appeal 2008-1495). Moreover, mere mention of a piece of a computer or processing device does not confer patentability. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International ("Alice Corp") 573 US __ (2014). Incorporating the two-step test espoused in its recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus 566 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court describes a first inquiry as to whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court requires a second inquiry as to whether the elements, individually or in combination, “transform” the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible invention. The Court described this second step as a search for an inventive concept, “i.e., an element or combination sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic elements that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something to improved hardware functionality.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a math problem.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abstract idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, storage do something nongeneric such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an idea for which computers are invoked as a tool.
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of calculating a number using generic technology.
In addition to these indisputably generic features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces a result that overrides the generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We must thus conclude that the claims fail step two as well.
CONCLUSION
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621